re: build the enforcement check REFUTED.md lacked -- 0 real revivals, and why

sylpheed-port's check-claims fails their run when a refuted claim is quoted
without an explicit token, and feeding it four withdrawals flagged three still
asserted unmarked -- each inside a correction they had written. REFUTED.md
publishes deaths without enforcing them, which is the gap I named last iteration
and did not close.

check_refuted.py is the prose equivalent: for each quoted claim in REFUTED.md it
searches docs/ for that text and reports occurrences whose neighbourhood carries
no refutation marker. Controlled first -- a claim planted unmarked in a scratch
file is detected, so a clean run means something.

9 raw hits, ZERO real revivals. All false positives, and the kinds are the
finding: 2 were text explicitly DECLINING to revive a claim; 1 a duplicate report;
4 were BACKLOG.md entries under a 2026-08-12 header, an append-only log recording
what was believed then; 2 were the claim quoted inside its own correction.

The structural limit is worth more than the clean result. A neighbourhood-language
detector cannot separate "asserted now" from "recorded as believed then", because
a dated log entry and a revival read identically. The port's design avoids this by
testing for a token an author must PLACE rather than for language -- theirs fires
correctly inside a correction, which is what caught their three, while mine fires
incorrectly there and would miss a revival reworded.

Stopped tuning at two remaining. Each marker phrase added fits the detector to this
corpus's habits of expression and away from being a test of them; tuning until it
reads zero would be fitting the instrument to the answer. Left over-reporting,
which is the safe direction.

Reach: it matches a claim's exact wording, so "no verbatim revival" is not "no
revival".

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v

docs/re/data/refuted-enforcement-check.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+# Is any REFUTED claim still asserted, unmarked, in the corpus? 2026-08-30.
+# instrument: tools/re-capture/check_refuted.py
+#
+# sylpheed-port's `check-claims` FAILS THEIR RUN when a refuted claim is quoted
+# without a `[refuted]` token. Feeding it four of this session's withdrawals
+# immediately flagged three still asserted unmarked -- every one inside a
+# correction they had written themselves. REFUTED.md only publishes deaths; it
+# does not enforce them. This is the equivalent for a prose corpus.
+#
+# CONTROL FIRST: a claim planted unmarked in a scratch file is detected. A clean
+# run therefore means something.
+#
+# RESULT: 9 raw hits, ZERO real revivals. Every one is a false positive, of four
+# kinds, and the kinds are the finding:
+#
+#   2  text explicitly DECLINING to revive -- "does **not** revive `rot_n001` is
+#      on the disc". Reads as an assertion to a neighbourhood scan.
+#   1  the same line reported twice (one claim listed twice in REFUTED.md).
+#   4  entries in BACKLOG.md under a 2026-08-12 dated header -- an APPEND-ONLY LOG
+#      recording what was believed THEN. History, not revival.
+#   2  the claim quoted inside its own correction ("An earlier version of this
+#      bullet said ...").
+#
+# 🔴 THE STRUCTURAL LIMIT, which is worth more than the clean result:
+# a neighbourhood-language detector CANNOT separate "asserted now" from "recorded
+# as believed then", because a dated log entry and a revival read identically.
+# sylpheed-port's design avoids this by testing for a TOKEN AN AUTHOR MUST PLACE
+# rather than for language. Theirs fires correctly even inside a correction --
+# which is what caught their three -- while mine fires INCORRECTLY there and would
+# miss a revival phrased in different words entirely.
+#
+# ⚠️ I STOPPED TUNING AT TWO REMAINING. Each marker phrase added moves the detector
+# toward my corpus's habits of expression and away from being a test of it; tuning
+# until it reads zero would be fitting the instrument to the answer. Over-reporting
+# is the safe failure direction, so it is left over-reporting.
+#
+# ⚠️ And its reach: it matches a claim's EXACT wording. A revival in different
+# words is invisible. "No verbatim revival" is not "no revival".